MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

Per Bench.:

ITA No.-790/Ind/2025 AY: 2014-15

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a

second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079308840(1)

dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the

Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2014-15 and the

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to

31.03.2014.

2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s

147 rws 144 of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was

computed & assessed at Rs. 22,47,92,489/-. The return of

Income was not filed by the assessee. The aforesaid

“Assessment order” bears no: - ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-

22/1041378509(1) and that the same is dated 23.03.2022

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

Assessment Order”

2.2 The Dept. of Income tax was in possession of

information from the ITO (I & CI), Indore that the assessee

has done share trading under code amounting to Rs.

39009909/- , under code-2 amounting to Rs. 3, 87, 18,138/-

and under code 3 amounting to Rs. 14,70,64,442/-. That the

assessee had not furnished any details regarding the source

of investment in the said share trading. No ITR is filed, hence the assessee has not shown above transaction in

the ROI.

2.3 That the case was reopened u/s 147 and a notice u/s 148

was issued on 30.03.2021. Notice u/s 142(1) of the act dated

14.01.2022 was issued to the assessee calling for the details,

documents and evidences to explain the above transactions

during the year under consideration. But the notice was returned

back by the postal authorities with the remark “Addressee

Moved”. The case was transferred back from NeAC to ward 1(4)

Indore on 02.02.2022 and yet another notice dated 07.02.2022

was again issued to the assessee but the same was again

returned back with the same remark as aforesaid i.e. “Addressee

Moved”. Therefore another notice dated 03.03.2022 was affixed

on the address of the assessee by the inspector of Ld. AO.

The Ld. AO under the circumstances was left with no option but

to pass the “Impugned Assessment Order” u/s 144 of the act

ex-parte, on the basis of the material available on the record.

2.4 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s

246A of the act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the

grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and

reasons for the Dismissal of the first appeal were as under:-

“The instant appeal has been instituted on 09.12.2024 against the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of I.T. Act 1961 (the Act) for A.Y. 2014-15 by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, appeal is filed/migrated to the National Appeal Centre in terms of Notification Faceless No.76/2020/F.No.370142/33/2020-TPL dated 25.09.2020 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Accordingly, appellant appeal as filed for AY 2014-15 is considered as per law. Accordingly, appellant has filed two separate appeals for AY 2014-15 including this appeal as involving similar/same facts of case/contentions/GOA etc., one each against assessment order of AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of I.T. Act and related penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act for AY 2014-15 and the same are discussed together as under as involving similar/same facts of case as advanced by the appellant as per law. Further the appellant has filed these two appeals, one each against assessment order and related penalty order of AO of AY 2014-15 with a delay of more than two and half years and more than two years respectively and with reference to the same appellant has not filed any request/application for condonation of delay. However, in the submissions filed during the appeal proceedings, it is merely contended the same as not filed as the appellant is not aware of these orders of AO due to change of address of appellant etc., and thereby contended such orders of AO as involving re-assessment proceedings as bad in law. However, with reference to delay involved in filing these appeals in particular, apparently, appellant did not file any such submissions/condonation plea so as to substantiate delay involved as involving sufficient and justifiable cause warranting for condonation of delay as per law. Accordingly, appellant appeals as filed involving such inordinate delay in these two appeals is to be treated as having no sufficient justifiable cause for condoning the delay as delay involved being two to three years as explained supra

1.1. Since, the appellant failed to furnish any justifiable submission/proofs etc. to explain such an inordinate delay in filing these appeals against this assessment order and related penalty order, it is clearly noticeable that, the appellant failed to substantiate/justify such an inordinate delay of more than two and half years and more than two years respectively of assessment order and related penalty order and is apparently not acceptable as involving any justifiable reasons etc., as appellant failed to even the acknowledge the delay involved in filing these appeals as per Form 35 and even could not adduce any such submissions/condonation plea as needed to explain the inordinate delay involved in filing these two appeals as per law. Accordingly, the appellant appeals apparently are not having a reasonable case to condone the delay as there exists clear and apparent negligence on the part of the appellant in filing these two appeals with such an inordinate delay as high as two to three years as explained supra. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1.4. In view of the above facts of case of appellant and as discussed supra, on account of the failure of the appellant to satisfactorily explain the delay, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. It may also be pertinent to note that the failure to file the appeal within a reasonable period implies acceptance of the order of an adjudicating authority and subsequent decisions by appellate authorities in similar matters cannot be a justification to file a delayed appeal. The Hon. Bombay High Court has had occasion to consider such a matter in Somerset Place Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer 16(2)(1) in 57 taxmann.com 7. It observed as under: "Applying the test of a prudent litigant it cannot be held that once the applicant by his own violation had decided to accept a judicial order, the applicant can at any time assail the same may be for the reason that subsequently new decisions are rendered on that issue..... If the contention of the applicant is accepted, it would create a situation of chaos and unsettling various orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal as accepted by the parties. The legislative mandate in stipulating a limitation to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation cannot be permitted to be defeated when a litigant has taken a decision not to pursue further proceedings. A new ruling is no ground for reviewing a previous judgement. If this is permitted, the inevitable consequence is confusion, chaos, uncertainty and inconvenience as then no orders can ever attain finality though accepted by parties." Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1.8. Under the circumstances, it is constrained to hold that no material substantiation/even acknowledgement of delay involved with condonation plea etc., has been adduced by the appellant to successfully demonstrate that there was no negligence, inaction, or want of due diligence involved in the inordinate delay of more than two and half years and more than two years respectively in filing these two appeals against assessment order and related penalty order. Indeed, there appears appellant clear negligence as attributable to appellant to pursue quasi-judicial proceedings of Income Tax as applicable as per the time limits and thereby appellant mere plea without any justifiable/reconcilable evidences apparently seems not acceptable as per the facts of the case. In other words, no sufficient cause/justification with bonafide proofs has been established by the appellant for the delay in filing these appeals. Consequently, the appellant appeals with inordinate delay in filing the instant two appeals are to be rejected as lacking 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act. The appeals are therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeals being dismissed in limine, appellant's two appeals are considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping in view the appellant claims/submissions as per law on merits.

Accordingly, appellant both the appeals as filed one each against assessment order of AY 2014-15 and related penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act are considered as under as per law. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3A. Aggrieved against the above order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of I.T Act, dated 23.03.2022 for AY 2014-15 the appellant has preferred these appeals with the following statement of facts and grounds of appeal.

(a)Statement of facts:

"Assessee is an Individual having PAN no. BOMPS7161D. Ld. Assessing ofcer made an addition of Rs. 22,47,92,489/- оn account of unexplained investment u/s 69 in respect of share trading. It is submitted that Assessee has not carried out any share trading during the year under consideration. Notices were issued by Income Tax Department but Assessee was not receiving any of them as the address registered in the Income Tax Department was changed, and therefore, was unable to receive the physical copies of the notices issued by the Income Tax department. Additionally, Assessee did not received any email correspondence related to the notices. Consequently, Assessee was unable to reply within the stipulated time. Further it is submitted that notices served were retumed with the remark that addressee moved as such Assessee was unable to reply. Assessee has not conducted any share trading during the financial year under scrutiny. The addition made by Ld Assessing ofcer on account of share trading does not pertains to the Assessee. Further the communication delivered by the Ld. Income Tax officer was not received by the assessee due to address change as such Assessee was unable to reply for the same. As such the addition made is bad in law and deserves to be deleted."

(b)Grounds of Appeal:

"The addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of Income tax Act 1961 amounting to Rs. 22,47,92,489/- is bad in law and deserved to be deleted. The addition so added being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be deleted."

3B. Aggrieved against the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T Act, dated 12.09.2022 for AY 2014-15 the appellant has preferred these appeals with the following statement of facts and grounds of appeal.

(a)Statement of facts:

"Assessee is an Individual having PAN No. BOMPS7161D. Ld. Assessing officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act 1961 amounting to Rs. 7,64,06,968/-, Ld. Assessing officer imposed penalty on the plea that Assessee has concealed particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 22,47,92,490/- relating to share trading. It is submitted that the assessée has not concealed the particulars of her true income during the course of assessment nor Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty order No ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (c)/2022-23/1045417181(1) Dt. 12/09/2022 the AO has stated at para No. 3 that assessee has not submitted any response regarding source and nature of income. It is submitted that all the notices of hearing were not received neither in physical form nor on emailed due to change in address to the address registered in Income Tax. Further the share transactions as reported does not pertains to assessee as such there is no reason to conceal or furnish inaccurate details. It is further submitted that since all necessary facts are disclosed by Assessee as such it is requested that the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) of income Tax 1961 may kindly be quashed and deleted."

(b)Grounds of Appeal:

"The impugned penalty order u/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax 1961 dated as well as notices are bad in law and on facts of the case, for various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. The Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in imposing penalty of Rs. 7,64,06,968/- u/s 271(1)(c). The penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be deleted."

4(a). Subsequently, during the pendency of appeal, appellant was issued various notices of hearing u/s. 250 of the I.T Act as applicable to assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of IT Act for AY 2014-15, dated 01.01.2025 (Enablement of Communication hearing notice), 09.05.2025, 17.06.2025 and latest hearing notice dated 22.07.2025 posting the appeal for hearing/filing submissions on or before 28.07.2025. For all these hearing notices, appellant has filed its submissions on 15.05.2025 and reiterated the same/similar submissions in response to subsequent hearing notices and same are considered. Similarly, appellant was issued various notices of hearing u/s. 250 of the IT Act as applicable to penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T Act for AY 2014-15, dated 01.01.2025 (Enablement of Communication hearing notice), 09.05.2025, 17.06.2025 and latest hearing notice dated 22.07.2025 posting the appeal for hearing/filing submissions on or before 28.07.2025. For all these hearing notices, appellant has filed its submissions on 15.05.2025 and reiterated the same/similar submissions in response to subsequent hearing notices and same are considered,

5(a) After careful consideration of appellant's form 35, statement of facts/annexure as available etc. and keeping in view of the overall facts of case and observations/findings of assessing officer as brought in the assessment order and related penalty order etc., The appellant's various grounds of appeal/ inter-alia contentions as adduced can be considered for its disposal on merits of facts as available on record as under

5(b). On perusal of overall facts of case, it is noticeable that, the appellant is a non-filer and as per information received from ITO. (I&CI), Indore, appellant case was selected under a special project based on STT return analysis for F.Y. 2013-14, identifying the assessee as a high-risk individual by DIT (18CI), Bhopal. As per the information received, the appellant is involved in share transactions/trading etc., for a total consideration of Rs.22.47 crore comprising delivery-based purchases for a consideration of Rs.3.90 crore, delivery-based sales for a consideration of Rs.3.87 crore, and non-delivery- based sales for a consideration of Rs. 14.70 crore as explained by AO in assessment order totalling to Rs.22.47 crores share transactions during the year. Accordingly, AO initiated re- assessment proceedings and issued 148 notice to the appellant, calling for appellant ROI, however, appellant could not file any such ROI as called for by AO. Accordingly, AO issued 142(1) notices to the appellant from time to time as narrated in the assessment order, seeking appellant response/explanation for share transactions as made during the year as narrated in assessment order for which appellant has not filed any response/submission. In the absence of any such response from appellant and on perusal of information as received by the department as attributable to appellant share transactions etc., AO observed such share transactions for a total consideration of Rs.22.47 crore as made during the year as unexplained investment by the appellant u/s 69 of IT Act. Accordingly, AO concluded assessment proceedings by assessing such unexplained share transactions as at Rs.22.47 crore as unexplained investment u/s 69 of IT Act and treated the same as appellant income vide his assessment order dated 23.03.2022 and has also initiated applicable penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act as explained in detail in assessment order. During the penalty proceedings as well, AO issued various hearing/SCN notices to the appellant seeking appellant explanation on the penalty proceedings as applicable to concealment of income on the additions made in assessment order. However, in response to the same, during the penalty proceedings, appellant could not file any such comprehensive reply/substantiation as needed to explain non-attraction of such concealment penalty proceedings as applicable to appellant facts of case resulting in conclusion of penalty proceedings as squarely attracted to the appellant facts of case as analysed and reasoned by AO in this penalty order read with related assessment order. In view of the same, AO has levied applicable penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act as at Rs.7.64-crores vide penalty order of AO dated 12.09.2022. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Accordingly, as above, AO has completed assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of I.T. Act 2014-15 vide order dated 23.03.2022 and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T Act for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 12.09.2022.

In the light of above facts of the case, on perusal of appellant GOA as advanced against the assessment order appeal of AY 2014-15, it is noticeable that, appellant is contending the order of AO as bad in law as the AO has erred in treating the share transactions as at Rs.22.47 crore as unexplained investment of appellant and contended the same as contrary to law and facts of case and thereby requested to delete the same. However, on perusal of facts on record as brought out by AO in the assessment order, it is clearly noticeable that, appellant is a non-filer at original instance inspite of having made substantial share transactions during the year and could not even respond to the various notices as issued by AO from time to time seeking explanation on these share transactions with consequent filing of such ROI as per law. In the light of these facts, appellant mere contentions to hold that AO erred in assessing such share transactions as unexplained investment neither has a basis nor has any justification as appellant is a non-filer in the eyes of law even after issue of various statutory notices as explained by AO in the assessment order notice on including re-assessment Further, perusal of appellant contentions/GOA/submissions as advanced during the appeal proceedings etc., it is noticeable that the appellant is merely contending the order of AO as bad in law by claiming the share transactions as simply not attributable to the appellant and thereby further contended these transactions as not carried out by appellant as claimed by the department as per the department information and accordingly, claims such treatment of these transactions as attributable to unexplained investment of appellant as not maintainable. However, appellant is contending/claiming as having demat account during the relevant period and also claimed having maintained the same with Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., which was declared as defaulter by SEBI and thereby contended could not obtain the relevant account transactions as applicable to appellant for the relevant period to explain the same. In the light of these apparent facts as claimed by the appellant, appellant is indeed maintaining demat account during the period and could not obtain these transactions as took place in appellant account/demat account as applicable/as per the information obtained by the department owing to the difficulties explained by the appellant. However, appellant did not dispute the fact of transactions in appellant account/demat account as indeed took place/carried out during the year as applicable to appellant as per the information populated to the department as observed by AO in the assessment order. Accordingly, the primary onus is on appellant to explain these transactions as took place in appellant account/appellant demat account as involving share transactions under different codes totalling to an amount of Rs.22.47 crore transactions as analysed and reconciled by AO in the assessment order. In the absence of the same these transactions stand as unexplained transactions/investments of appellant as per the provisions u/s 69 of IT Act as reasoned by AO in assessment order and thereby there exists no infirmity in assessing the same as applicable to appellant facts of case as the same is not substantiated as per law by the appellant. Accordingly, appellant various contentions/GOA/submissions as advanced to hold the order of AO as bad in law in assessing the unexplained share transactions as unexplained investment of appellant is to be treated as neither reconcilable nor justifiable as per the facts on record as the primary onus is cast on appellant to explain appellant demat account with supporting proofs of explainable sources for these transactions as indeed took place as observed by AO in assessment order. Further, appellant has placed reliance on various citations as per the submissions to hold the same as allowable and on perusal of facts of case/ ratios of adjudication of the citations as applicable to appellant facts of case, the same are neither comparable nor equitable in its facts of case and ratios of adjudication apparently as

per law. Further, appellant did not bring out such comparative analysis as applicable to appellant facts of case as related to such share transactions/demat account transactions etc., and ratios of adjudication as attributable to the citations as needed to adduce and thereby appellant mere contentions on this analogy to hold the assessment order as not maintainable is to be treated as not maintainable as per the facts of case and circumstances as explained above. In the light of these facts appellant various GOA as advanced are to be treated as not maintainable and thereby appellant appeal against assessment order is to be treated as dismissed as per facts/submissions available on record on merits as well not withstanding its dismissal in limine. Further, on perusal of appellant various/multiple overlapping grounds of appeal as advanced against the penalty order of AO, it is noticeable that, appellant is contending the order of AO in levying penalty as erroneous and bad in law as it fails to appreciate appellant facts/circumstances of case in initiating and levying such penalty and thereby contended such order of AO as not maintainable and requested to delete the same. However, on perusal of facts on record as brought out by AO in the penalty order, it is clearly noticeable that appellant is indeed involved in making substantial share transactions during the year for Rs.22.47 crores for which appellant could not explain the applicable sources as attributable to these deposits/transactions as per law before AO as already discussed in detail supra as pertains to appellant appeal against assessment order. In the absence of the same only, AO treated such unexplained share transactions as unexplained investment as reasoned in the assessment order along with initiation of consequent penalty proceedings for concealment of income as applicable as per law as referred in the assessment order. Accordingly, AO further pursued these penalty proceedings seeking appellant explanation for the same and as appellant failed to substantiate the same, AO reasoned the entire unexplained investment as involving concealment of income to that extent and as squarely attracted by the relevant penalty proceedings as per law as analysed in this penalty order read with related assessment order. Accordingly, AO treated appellant as only involved in concealment of income as per the provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act and thereby levied such applicable penalty. In the light of these facts and on perusal of appellant contentions/GOA/submissions as filed during appeal proceedings, it is noticeable that appellant is contending that such initiation and levy of penalty as not maintainable as the income assessed by AO in assessment order is itself erroneous as appellant is not involved in these share transactions etc., and thereby contended the consequent penalty order of AO as not maintainable as applicable to appellant facts of case. However, appellant could not establish the correctness of claims as made on the issue of unexplained investment/transactions as contended as already reasoned and analysed as discussed in detail supra as pertains to assessment appeal. As appellant failed to substantiate such share transactions/investments with supporting proofs/sources, the entire transactions are treated as unexplained investment resulting in assessing the income as reasoned by AO in assessment order with consequent initiation of penalty for concealment of income to that extent as reasoned in the penalty order read with related assessment order. In the light of these apparent facts owing to the appellant deficiencies in explaining the share investments as reasoned by AO in the penalty order, the addition as made in the assessment order is treated as squarely attracted by the relevant penalty proceedings and thereby there exists no infirmity in the order of AO in levying such penalty as per this order dated 12.09.2022 of AY 2014-15, keeping in view the detailed discussion as already made supra on this issue of unexplained investment with consequent dismissal of appellant appeal against substantive addition made in the assessment order. Further, appellant has placed reliance on various citations as per the submissions to hold the same as allowable and on perusal of facts of case/ ratios of adjudication of the citations as applicable to appellant facts of case as attributable to such unexplained investments/share transactions/demat account transaction etc., the same are neither comparable nor equitable in its facts of case and ratios of adjudication apparently as per law. Further, appellant did not bring out such comparative analysis as applicable to appellant facts of case and ratios of adjudication as attributable to the citations as needed to adduce and thereby appellant mere contentions on this analogy to hold the penalty order as not maintainable is to be treated as not maintainable as per the facts of case and circumstances as explained above. Considering these finer facts of the case, appellant mere contentions as advanced to hold the penalty order of AO as not maintainable without any substantiation is to be treated as not justifiable and thereby penalty order of AO is sustainable as the substantive addition as made in assessment order of AY 2014-15 stands sustained as reasoned supra as involving concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act to attract these penalty proceedings as per law. In the result appellant all GOA as advanced against this penalty order of AY 2014-15 is to be treated as not maintainable and thereby appellant appeal against this penalty order stands dismissed as per facts/submissions available on record on merits as well not withstanding its dismissal in limine.

2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order”

has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal

and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form no.

36 against the Impugned Order which are as under:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal by making a remark that the appeal is non maintainable since it was filed with the inordinate delay and the delay is not condoned.

1.1 It was proved before the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC that the notices and order were not received by the assessee and were returned back with the remark that the assessee has moved. Since there was proper service of the notice, the assessment framed was bad in law. The assessee did not receive the assessment order which were sent by post because of change of address. The appeal was filed after the receipt of the assessment order physically which is in time. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in maintaining the re-opening of the assessment. It was submitted that the assessee has not carried out any share dealing during the financial year and as such the re-opening of the assessment on this ground is bad in law. The assessment is bad in law since it has been mentioned that the income is assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 when no actión u/s 263 was carried out. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the assessment order thereby maintaining the addition of Rs. 22,47,92,490/- being the unexplained investment in share transaction as undisclosed investment u/s 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC did not consider the detail submissions filed before him that assessee has not carried out any share transaction during the year under consideration. The addition may please be deleted.

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 08.04.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It

therefore deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR has placed on

the record of this tribunal a paper book containing pages 1

to 16. It was submitted that papers from pages 1 to 4 are

affidavits. The papers from pages 5 to 16 are

applications/reply under RTI.

3.2 The Ld. AR then stated that ITA No: - 790/Ind/2025

AY: 2014-15 is Quantum Appeal, whereas ITA No: -

791/Ind/2025 AY: 2014-15 is on Penalty. In so far as the

“Impugned Order” of the Ld. CIT (A) is concerned it was

submitted that it is a consolidated order wherein both the

Quantum Assessment Order dated 23.03.2022 u/s 147

rws 144 and so also Penalty Order dated 12.09.2022 u/s

271(1)(C) are disposed off. The Ld. AR however clarified that despite there being a consolidated Impugned Order both

on Assessment/ Quantum and the Penalty the assessee has

chosen to file two separate appeals as aforesaid.

3.3 In so far as Quantum I.T. appeal no.- 790/Ind/2025 is

concerned it was submitted that “Impugned Assessment

Order” dated 23.03.2022 was made u/s 147 rws 144 of the

act. It was thus an ex-parte order wherein no opportunity

was given to the assessee. The required notice(s) issued

and despatched by the assessee where returned back to the

sender i.e. Income Tax Dept. as there was a change of

address of the Assessee. Even the postal authorities have

remarked “Addressee Moved”. All these facts of notice(s),

and it’s returned back by the postal authorities are

recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” at Para 3

which was read out by him. It was submitted that service of

notice(s) by “Affixture” was done at the same place/address

where the notice(s) were despatched. In so far as the

“Impugned Order” of Ld. CIT (A) was concerned it was

submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay of

more than 2 years. It was fairly submitted by Ld. AR that no application for the condonation of delay was made by the

Assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) but submission were made.

The “Impugned Order” is common order on Quantum and

Penalty was again emphasised. It was also submitted that

there was a non-representation before the Ld. CIT (A). It was

then submitted that in the paper book placed on record page

1 to 4 contains two affidavits of the assessee. The first

being on page 2 to 3 is dated 28.02.2026 it is affirmed that

the assessee during the financial year 2013-14 relevant to

assessment year 2014-15 did not carry out any transaction

relating to purchase or sales of shares, securities or

equity investments in her name. It is also affirmed in the

said affidavit that assessee though has Demat Account no.-

16642790 but no transaction were carried out during the

financial year. In so far as second affidavit dated

28.02.2026 on paper book page 4 & 5 is concerned it was

submitted that the assessee correct current address is B-

26, R1, Indian Oil Nagar, Site-1, Noida Sector-55 U.P.-

201301 but Dept. of Income tax issued notice(s) at 145

DH. Scheme 74, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. which was my old address which was left by her on 05.03.2018. It is also

avered that previously my email id was not registered on IT

Portal and therefore she was unable to receive and to

respond to the notices issued by the Income Tax Dept.

3.4 The Ld. AR further submitted that all the trades of

shares basis some information have been added in the

“Impugned Assessment Order” running to about 22 crores

and same are confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A), in the Impugned

Order. The Ld. AR emphasised that since no trades are

done by the assessee, the assessee cannot be compelled

to prove negative. The affidavits so filed are proof enough

about no trades being done by her and she changed her

address. No record of her e mail id is on portal and that

same is now updated. The Ld. AR finally submitted that the

“Impugned order” and so also “Impugned Assessment

Order” are not on merits due to lack of opportunity to the

assessee due to factors enumerated above. It was finally

prayed that the “Impugned Order” be set aside and matter

be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication

on De novo basis.

The submissions of the assessee at first appellate level are

reproduced as below:

3.5 Per contra to the above submissions of the Ld. AR, the Ld.

DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee be now directed to update all her material details like permanent address,

current address, mobile no., email id, and other KYC details

on the income tax data base. The hearing was then closed.

The Ld. DR however left it to the wisdom of this tribunal to

take appropriate call basis law.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that the

“Impugned Assessment Order” is under section 147/144 of

the act and the matter has not been adjudicated and adjudged

basis merits of the case. Even the “impugned order” is strictly

not on merits. The Assessee had changed her address from Indore to Noida as per affidavit filed and further she has

solemnly affirmed and declared in the affidavit that she never

traded in shares, securities market. Be that as it may we are of

the considered opinion that both the “Impugned Assessment

Order” and “Impugned Order” should be on merits of the case.

In the present case basis information of director of Income Tax

(Intelligence and CI) Bhopal the case was selected as special

project in respect of verification of high risk person identified out

of analysis of STT returns for FY. 2013-14 and additions of 22.5

Cr. Came to be made (Supra) in addition to Penalty. We are of

the considered opinion that effective methodology and steps

ought to have been taken to ensure that notices were at least

served on the assessee as information had disclosed huge

volume of transactions in the securities market.

4.4 In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

“Impugned Order” should be set aside and matter should be

remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for passing a fresh order on

merits of the case. It is the expectation of this tribunal that the

assessee would now give her full and complete details including

latest emails of her and her counsels including correct current address and so also permanent address where the notice(s) could

be served effectively by the dept. The assessee is directed to

attend hearing as and when fixed and to file reply and the details

as sought by the Ld. AO.

4.5 In view of the premises drawn by us we set aside the

Impugned Order and remand the case back to the file of Ld.

AO on De novo basis that shall now pass a speaking and

well-reasoned order on merits after giving full and complete

opportunities to the assessee. Assessee is directed to

cooperate with the dept.

5 Order

5.1 In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

way of remand back to the file of the Ld. AO.

ITA No: - 791/Ind/2025, AY:2014-15

5.2. The above appeal deals with Penalty of Rs. 7,64,06,968/-

which was imposed vide penalty order no.-

ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(C)/2022-23/1045417181(1) dated

“Impugned Order” of 12.09.2022. The CIT (A) bears same Number. and date as in ITA No.-790/Ind/2025, which is a

consolidated order both on Quantum and Penalty. Since in ITA

No.- 790/Ind/2025 we have set aside the Impugned Order as

and by way of remand back to Ld. AO the same order would

mutatis-mutandis apply to ITA No.-791/Ind/2025.

5.2 In the final result both the appeals are allowed for statistical

purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 17.04.2026.

Sd/- sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 17/04/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 25 of 25